When Will the World be Relieved of this Scourge?

[Okeefenokee]

There's been quite a lot said about there being a stark difference between the warring nations of europe from the past, and europe now.

Dan talked about it in one of his shows. It might have been CS. Basically, the fact that Lithuania exists is proof that europe is not what it used to be.

[Okeefenokee]

And that was after wave after wave of tenacious Europeans left to go to the new world.

Tenacious? Aren't you one of those clowns who keeps claiming that people fleeing war and persecution should just "man up and fight for their homeland?" Well, by your own logic answer me this: Why didn't your pussy ancestors just stay in Britian, Germany, France, or whereever they came from and fight for their homeland instead of fleeing like cowards?

Try again.

They weren't refugees. They were immigrants who left a reasonably safe life with little chance of improvement to take a dangerous gamble on a much better chance at improvement.

You trying to tie that back into men abandoning their country in the middle of a civil war is absolutely pathetic.

[BjornP]

Capital is international, companies globalized and you don't need to invade your neighbours to exert dominance over them anymore (Finland). That is one of the major reasons war has decreased in Europe. War has never been the ends in itself, after all. If the means just require the threat of war, or pressure by other channels (economic, for example), you can still achieve the same ends. That's the top-down reason. Improvements in mass communication, and especially public communication and the reduced cost of travel is another, more bottom-up reason. Most Europeans today, especially neighbouring countries, communicate alot with each other on a personal level, compared to in the past, making it harder for governments to press for war.

[Ex-California]

And I honestly think we're just starting to see the effects of the genes that were wiped out in addition to the long-term "cultural PTSD" from the two world wars. Europeans were some of the most warlike and brutal people all throughout history and then *poof* you have today.

There's nothing genetic or even cultural about "warlike and brutal" Europe. The reason European countries were more at war with each other than North America has one simple reason:

More neighbouring countries of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds, yet of similar technological level all competing for ressources, trade access and prestige = more wars. Same applies throughout the world and has nothing to do with genes or cultural anything. Same applied to pre-western North America, which was as linguistically and ethnically different from one corner of NA to the other, as Europe was today.

The United States hostile neighbours were tiny bands of rock-throwing natives vs. predominantly Anglo-Saxon migrants with superior weaponry and numbers turning most of North America into a English-speaking region. If the only enemies you need to fight to gain land, are rock-throwing natives, whereas you not only outnumber them but also hold an absolute technological superiority, then of course, you're not going to have many wars. Nevermind that your history only goes a little over 200 year back. Has a country like Germany or France really been much more at war than the US to warrant the label of "warlike" just over the last 100 years?

I'm talking about a long time before the American Encounter.

Lets see we had

The Greeks stop the Persians
Alexander conquer the know world
Rome
The Germanic reshaping of Europe post-Rome
The Franks stopping Islam
The various battles in Eastern and Central Europe that stopped the Mongols
The takeover of the New World
Hegemony over the rest of the world after that

All of this was happening with constant wars between each other.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And that was after wave after wave of tenacious Europeans left to go to the new world.

Tenacious? Aren't you one of those clowns who keeps claiming that people fleeing war and persecution should just "man up and fight for their homeland?" Well, by your own logic answer me this: Why didn't your pussy ancestors just stay in Britian, Germany, France, or whereever they came from and fight for their homeland instead of fleeing like cowards?

Try again.

They weren't refugees. They were immigrants who left a reasonably safe life with little chance of improvement to take a dangerous gamble on a much better chance at improvement.

You trying to tie that back into men abandoning their country in the middle of a civil war is absolutely pathetic.

Irish Potato Famine. English Civil War. Pretty much every European skirmish for centuries inspired a new wave of immigration.

But that's totally different because.... ?

[SuburbanFarmer]

It goes back to biology as the fundamental driver of politics. Cowardly men will seek to increase their numbers in order to normalize their cowardice, and ultimately to marginalize and punish stronger men. I think these guys imagine themselves in that situation and realize they would flee, so they feel the need to affirm the same behavior in those who actually did flee instead of fight.

The corrective procedure may well come down merely to more physical education and competition in schools. If you somehow were able to require the typical beta male type to lift and play sports four to five days per week, I really wonder how many would still sup port this stupid shit in a year or so.

I do not believe we are dealing with legitimate political differences here, at least with respect to the men, but rather, a health crisis.

Man, you really are ridiculous some times. Is it more "alpha" (which, of course you're using as 'virtuous') to keep your family in a warzone, between 2 sides you don't care about, so that you can go down throwing rocks at a tank? Or to go through hell on earth to get them out? Is it 'cowardly' or 'beta' to give all of your life savings to your kid, in hopes that he can escape the fate of the rest of your family? What kind of fucking reality do you live in??
If you want to bleed for a flag, then go do it already.

Isn't it wonderful when nothing is your fault, and you aren't responsible for anything?

I'm responsible for the well-being of my offspring. Not sacrificing them on the altar of my personal 'manhood', or some idiotic version of patriotism when my own government is barrel-bombing them.

[BjornP]

And that was after wave after wave of tenacious Europeans left to go to the new world.

Tenacious? Aren't you one of those clowns who keeps claiming that people fleeing war and persecution should just "man up and fight for their homeland?" Well, by your own logic answer me this: Why didn't your pussy ancestors just stay in Britian, Germany, France, or whereever they came from and fight for their homeland instead of fleeing like cowards?

Try again.

They weren't refugees. They were immigrants who left a reasonably safe life with little chance of improvement to take a dangerous gamble on a much better chance at improvement.

You trying to tie that back into men abandoning their country in the middle of a civil war is absolutely pathetic.

And that's excatly what you guys chastised the "economic migrants" from the ME for, isn't it? What's pathetic is that you see people fleeing their home for no other reason than to make a buck as heroes, and people fleeing their homes for reasons of war as cowards. That's a bizarre concept of "courage". And the myth of Americans fleeing religious persecution is often portrayed by Americans themselves as refugees. How's fleeing to a new country because it does not let you do what you want, because it does not give you the freedoms you want less pussified?

Flees homeland because of war = "Pussy! Coward!"

Flees homeland because he can't make it in his own country = *dramatic background music* We welcome this plucky, tenacious hero to our shores! Huzzah!!"

Nevermind that Syrians were also fleeing their country, too, because Assad's regime did not give them any freedoms or opportunities, whereas Western countries do... (Not that I want to many of them. People leaving their homeland behind because they can't or won't fit in, is why you got invented).

Oh, and as for abandoning homelands while fighting's going on: The Irish didn't migrate to the US during the fighting for independence or civil war? Jews didn't migrate to the US up to and in the early stages of WW2 instead of heroically fighting...for their uhmm...homeland...? Oh wait, ethnic minorities are a thing, and turns out that Syria has ethnic minorities that neither the government or ISIS likes, either. Did no new English settlers arrive in New England during time period from Cromwell's takeover to the crowning of king James? They did? So did not expect that.

See, I don't actually have any problem with your ancestors leaving their homeland to make a buck and to make new homes for themselves. Only have a problem with your logically inconsistent moralizing about other people.

[BjornP]

And I honestly think we're just starting to see the effects of the genes that were wiped out in addition to the long-term "cultural PTSD" from the two world wars. Europeans were some of the most warlike and brutal people all throughout history and then *poof* you have today.

There's nothing genetic or even cultural about "warlike and brutal" Europe. The reason European countries were more at war with each other than North America has one simple reason:

More neighbouring countries of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds, yet of similar technological level all competing for ressources, trade access and prestige = more wars. Same applies throughout the world and has nothing to do with genes or cultural anything. Same applied to pre-western North America, which was as linguistically and ethnically different from one corner of NA to the other, as Europe was today.

The United States hostile neighbours were tiny bands of rock-throwing natives vs. predominantly Anglo-Saxon migrants with superior weaponry and numbers turning most of North America into a English-speaking region. If the only enemies you need to fight to gain land, are rock-throwing natives, whereas you not only outnumber them but also hold an absolute technological superiority, then of course, you're not going to have many wars. Nevermind that your history only goes a little over 200 year back. Has a country like Germany or France really been much more at war than the US to warrant the label of "warlike" just over the last 100 years?

I'm talking about a long time before the American Encounter.

Lets see we had

The Greeks stop the Persians
Alexander conquer the know world
Rome
The Germanic reshaping of Europe post-Rome
The Franks stopping Islam
The various battles in Eastern and Central Europe that stopped the Mongols
The takeover of the New World
Hegemony over the rest of the world after that

All of this was happening with constant wars between each other.

And that's...what? Proof of Europe, or European genes, being particularly "warlike and brutal"? Compared to who? Did Native Americans smoke the peace pipe and get together in sing alongs round the campfires before Europeans corrupted them or something? Did the Chinese? The Japanese? Any North African, South African, West African or East African peoples?

You're just listing wars. Not any evidence of Europe being more "warlike and brutal" than anyone else. You're going to have more wars if you have more independent states or nations fighting over influence over each other. Doesn't mean that the people living there are genetically, biologically more warlike.

[SuburbanFarmer]

There's nothing genetic or even cultural about "warlike and brutal" Europe. The reason European countries were more at war with each other than North America has one simple reason:

More neighbouring countries of different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds, yet of similar technological level all competing for ressources, trade access and prestige = more wars. Same applies throughout the world and has nothing to do with genes or cultural anything. Same applied to pre-western North America, which was as linguistically and ethnically different from one corner of NA to the other, as Europe was today.

The United States hostile neighbours were tiny bands of rock-throwing natives vs. predominantly Anglo-Saxon migrants with superior weaponry and numbers turning most of North America into a English-speaking region. If the only enemies you need to fight to gain land, are rock-throwing natives, whereas you not only outnumber them but also hold an absolute technological superiority, then of course, you're not going to have many wars. Nevermind that your history only goes a little over 200 year back. Has a country like Germany or France really been much more at war than the US to warrant the label of "warlike" just over the last 100 years?

I'm talking about a long time before the American Encounter.

Lets see we had

The Greeks stop the Persians
Alexander conquer the know world
Rome
The Germanic reshaping of Europe post-Rome
The Franks stopping Islam
The various battles in Eastern and Central Europe that stopped the Mongols
The takeover of the New World
Hegemony over the rest of the world after that

All of this was happening with constant wars between each other.

And that's...what? Proof of Europe, or European genes, being particularly "warlike and brutal"? Compared to who? Did Native Americans smoke the peace pipe and get together in sing alongs round the campfires before Europeans corrupted them or something? Did the Chinese? The Japanese? Any North African, South African, West African or East African peoples?

You're just listing wars. Not any evidence of Europe being more "warlike and brutal" than anyone else. You're going to have more wars if you have more independent states or nations fighting over influence over each other. Doesn't mean that the people living there are genetically, biologically more warlike.

Dude, you are totally fucking with the MHF Eugenics Program. Stop it.

[Speaker to Animals]

It goes back to biology as the fundamental driver of politics. Cowardly men will seek to increase their numbers in order to normalize their cowardice, and ultimately to marginalize and punish stronger men. I think these guys imagine themselves in that situation and realize they would flee, so they feel the need to affirm the same behavior in those who actually did flee instead of fight.

The corrective procedure may well come down merely to more physical education and competition in schools. If you somehow were able to require the typical beta male type to lift and play sports four to five days per week, I really wonder how many would still sup port this stupid shit in a year or so.

I do not believe we are dealing with legitimate political differences here, at least with respect to the men, but rather, a health crisis.

Man, you really are ridiculous some times. Is it more "alpha" (which, of course you're using as 'virtuous') to keep your family in a warzone, between 2 sides you don't care about, so that you can go down throwing rocks at a tank? Or to go through hell on earth to get them out? Is it 'cowardly' or 'beta' to give all of your life savings to your kid, in hopes that he can escape the fate of the rest of your family? What kind of fucking reality do you live in??
If you want to bleed for a flag, then go do it already.

Isn't it wonderful when nothing is your fault, and you aren't responsible for anything?

They were raised to expect somebody else to fight for their lives at all times. They see it as a "job" that some other sucker volunteers for, while they rake in the benies. Concepts like honor and duty are just words to them.